x
Click to expand

wwttff

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:6/18/2012
Last Login:7/06/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13245
Highest Content Rank:#8213
Highest Comment Rank:#5599
Content Thumbs: 103 total,  136 ,  33
Comment Thumbs: 793 total,  982 ,  189
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 163 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 164 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:13274
Total Comments Made:539
FJ Points:776

Funny Pictures

latest user's comments

#72 - Good, go ahead and do that. I hope they get heart attacks when… 9 hours ago on Facts are fat shaming 0
#18 - ... 9 hours ago on Little fluffs 0
#172 - Indeed. 11 hours ago on mission status +1
#160 - You'd just scale down the size of the device. Are you familiar…  [+] (3 new replies) 12 hours ago on mission status +1
User avatar #164 - lathyrusvii (12 hours ago) [-]
To be clear, I'm not opposed; your idea has merit, and it'd totally work. The technology could exist and I simply not know about it, even.

I prefer low-tech solutions to problems when I can find them, is all, and that's totally swaying my opinion. At this point, I'm simply for listening to conjecture. :3 It's fun to watch people solve problems.
#172 - wwttff (11 hours ago) [-]
Indeed.
User avatar #163 - lathyrusvii (12 hours ago) [-]
I am, a bit. I understand the basics, and how it could be done, but as I said before, I solve -practical- problems.

Nuclear energy is amazing, down here on Earth. To utilize it in space would take a huge amount of research and time and money, all of which work against the project as a whole. Plus, there's the Outer Space Treaty to get around, and as should be apparent, the use of nuclear devices even for scientific endeavors would get shouted down by billions of people who don't understand the elegance of hitting a hornet's nest from the moon.

So. MAC and conventional weaponry are probably the more mundane, pragmatic way to accomplish this quest.
#155 - a tungsten bullet could EASILY survive reentry  [+] (1 new reply) 13 hours ago on mission status 0
#157 - jonball (13 hours ago) [-]
and second of all, the bullet would loose it's lethal velocity by the time it reaches close to the ground.
#154 - *not feasible 13 hours ago on mission status 0
#153 - You're right conventional cartridges are just nor feasible nor…  [+] (1 new reply) 13 hours ago on mission status 0
#159 - lathyrusvii (12 hours ago) [-]
I answered some other guy a moment ago about the oxygen consideration for the rifle... use a freaking condom. It'll contain enough atmosphere to fire the bullet once, which should be enough to hit the target. If not, bring more copies of the same rifle. That's less expensive than a nuclear engine, I think.

:3 You're observant tho; the propellant would be an issue. I'd imagine the next level up to utilize in terms of technology, though, would be a rocket-type propellant rather than nuclear.

But >>#102 is still my favorite option. Magnetic accelerator cannon? <3
#152 - If we were actively pursuing a feasible way to send a tungsten…  [+] (5 new replies) 13 hours ago on mission status 0
User avatar #156 - lathyrusvii (13 hours ago) [-]
Nuclear? >> That's... way too much energy. Like. One could use less technologically demanding powerplants for the PE. Gunpowder could probably still be used.

As for the rifle? Even that's a bit overreaching for technological purposes, I think. It could be designed to work in earth's atmosphere, and then when transferred to the moon, simply enclosed in like... a freaking condom. I'm serious; so long as the condom held, the rifle would be able to fire -once,- which should be enough if all of the money you wanted to pour into such extravagances are instead put into a sophisticated, ultra-precise aiming system for the rifle. :3

Anyway. That's what I tihnk. But no, >>#102 is probably my favorite so far. MAC rounds? Pft, I wanna build+shoot THAT.
#160 - wwttff (12 hours ago) [-]
You'd just scale down the size of the device. Are you familiar with Project Orion? They used nuclear bombs dropped then detonated below a shuttle to propel it upward.
User avatar #164 - lathyrusvii (12 hours ago) [-]
To be clear, I'm not opposed; your idea has merit, and it'd totally work. The technology could exist and I simply not know about it, even.

I prefer low-tech solutions to problems when I can find them, is all, and that's totally swaying my opinion. At this point, I'm simply for listening to conjecture. :3 It's fun to watch people solve problems.
#172 - wwttff (11 hours ago) [-]
Indeed.
User avatar #163 - lathyrusvii (12 hours ago) [-]
I am, a bit. I understand the basics, and how it could be done, but as I said before, I solve -practical- problems.

Nuclear energy is amazing, down here on Earth. To utilize it in space would take a huge amount of research and time and money, all of which work against the project as a whole. Plus, there's the Outer Space Treaty to get around, and as should be apparent, the use of nuclear devices even for scientific endeavors would get shouted down by billions of people who don't understand the elegance of hitting a hornet's nest from the moon.

So. MAC and conventional weaponry are probably the more mundane, pragmatic way to accomplish this quest.
#56 - Picture 13 hours ago on post your semi interesting... 0
#55 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 13 hours ago on post your semi interesting... 0
#56 - wwttff (13 hours ago) [-]

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)